For a relational approach to modern literary Arabic - Hal-SHS

25 Pages·2016·0.7 MB·English

by  Manuel Sartori

A relational approach to modern literary Arabic
conditional clauses
Manuel Sartori
To cite this version:
Manuel Sartori. A relational approach to modern literary Arabic conditional clauses. Arabic Corpus
Linguistics, 2018. ￿halshs-00584357￿
HAL Id: halshs-00584357
https://shs.hal.science/halshs-00584357
Submitted on 8 Apr 2011
HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access L’archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est
archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci- destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents
entific research documents, whether they are pub- scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,
lished or not. The documents may come from émanant des établissements d’enseignement et de
teaching and research institutions in France or recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires
abroad, or from public or private research centers. publics ou privés.
For a relational approach to modern literary Arabic conditional clauses1.
0. Introduction
TheissueoftheconditionalinclassicalArabicistreatedintheclassicalArabicgrammars,betheau-
thorsArab,bothtraditionalsuchasAwḍaḥal-Masālik'sIbnHišām(IbnHišām,1989)(d.761/1360)and
modern as Ǧamīʿ al-Durūs al-ʿArabiyya's al-Ġalāyīnī (1886-1944) (Ġalāyīnī (Al-), 2000), or foreign (Ara-
bist), forinstanceBlachèreandDemombynes (Blachèreet Gaudefroy-Demombynes,1975)ofFischer
(Fischer, 1987) or the work dedicated by Peled to this question (Peled, 1992). Using the novel by
Ǧamāl al-Ġiṭānī, Al-ZaynīBarakāt as a starting point, we identified many deviations from the rules of
theclassicalArabic.ThequestionthenaroseastohowweexpresstheconditionalinModernArabic.
Assuming that the answer must be found in the Modern Standard Arabic grammars, we intended to
comparewhatwesawindifferentcontemporaryliterarytextswithwhatthesegrammarspresentto
usonthesubject.Yet,thestudyoftheliterarytextsshowsthatthesegrammarsaredescriptivelyin-
adequate. Our purpose here will be to study only the literary register of Modern Standard Arabic,
highlighting at the same time the descriptive inadequacy of the Modern Standard Arabic grammars
and the relationship existing between the operator of the conditional clause and the apodosis of the
hypothetical system in question.
1. Literary corpus, methodology and first observations
Regarding descriptive realism, we chose a linguistic approach based on corpus and thus have re-
viewed hypothetical systems in extenso through various contemporary literary works. In diachrony,
our sample covers the period from 1963 to 2005. These then are novels by authors born after the
1930s,i.e.wellafterthesecondgenerationoftheNahḍaanditseffectsontheArabiclanguage,andat
a time when the influence of European languages on it must have been already widely felt. Geo-
graphically speaking, our corpus ranges from Syria to Morocco. The list of works is as follow:
Kanafānī,Riǧālfīl-šamsandAl-ʿĀšiq2;Zafzāf,Ḥiwārlaylmutaʾaḫḫir3;Ġiṭānī,Al-ZaynīBarakāt4;Tāmir,Al-
Numūr fī l-yawm al-ʿāšir5; Misʿidī, Ḥaddat̠a Abū Hurayra qāla…6; Ibrāhīm, al-Laǧna, Ḏāt and Warda7; Ibn
1. I dedicate this paper, which is a translation from my French article « Pour une approche
relationnelle de la conditionnelle en arabe littéraire moderne » published in Arabica, 2010, 57, pp.
68-98,toʿAdilandMuḥammad,forthemtounderstandalittlebitmorewhatIdototheirlanguage…
All my special thanks to Hannah Scottdeuchar who has gently read and corrected this English
version, with patience and accuracy.
2. Kanafānī, 2002 ; Kanafānī, 1987.
3. Zafzāf, 1970.
4. Ġiṭānī (Al-), 1974 : 225-345 = Ghitani, 1985 : 211-316.
5. Tāmir, 1981.
6. Misʿidī, 1997.
7. Ibrāhīm, 1997 ; Ibrāhīm, 1998 = Ibrahim, 1993 ; Ibrāhīm, 2000 = Ibrahim, 2005.
- ١ -
Haddūqa, Al-Ǧāziya wa-l-darāwīš8; al-Kūnī, Malakūt ṭiflat al-Rabb9. It is clear that what both Arab and
Arabist Classical Arabic grammars teach us inadequately reflects modern uses. We shoud also note
that these uses do not sufficiently shock modern translators who, otherwise, would perhaps not
have failed to report them. This is a direct result of the fact that this new syntax is familiar to us,
since it is more or less ours…
Forourstudythen,weidentifiedalloftheconditionalclauseoperatorspresentinthenovels
mentioned,i.e.boththetwo"classical"particlesinandlaw(anditsderivatives,includinglaw-lā),and
thetimecirconstant(ẓarfzamān)iḏā(anditsderivativesincludingiḏāmā"assoonas,hardly").From
this set, we naturally chose to keep only truly hypothetical systems (where the protasis p logically
implies the apodosis q), thus excluding the concessive clauses (wa-law, ḥattā law, ḥattā wa-law, ḥattā
iḏā, wa-in, etc.). Of the remaining systems, we then retained only the hypothetical systems that are
doubly verbal and assertive. "Doubly verbal" excludes 1) systems that have a protasis introduced by
law anna or law-lā, 2) systems that are not fully conditional (i.e. cases of protasis without apodosis
whicharetruncation,optationandfrozenuses,likelawsamaḥtaorinšāʾallah),and3)systemswhose
apodosis is a nominal or existential sentence (like lā budda an, ʿalay-hi an, bi-wusʿi-hi an). However,
this distinction retains the apodoses which are phrases made up of initial NP/report where the re-
port is itself a verbal sentence (like inna-hufaʿala/yafʿalu10). "Assertive" excludes the imperative, the
negativeimperative,andtheinterrogative.Fromthisfirstselection,outoftheentireidentifiedcor-
pus, we get 402 systems. Of this total, we will only process the 283 relevant if p q sequences (which
represent70.40%ofthetotalwhilethesequenceqifponlyrepresents29.60%),toassessthepossible
importance of fa- in the Potential systems and of la- in the Unreal systems.
In Postclassical Arabic, the Arabic hypothetical system can be schematized as follows, show-
ing the possible verbal forms, both in protasis and apodosis, and also the hypothetical statutes:
Table 1. The hypothetical system in grammars of Postclassical Arabic
Protasis Apodosis
iḏā faʿala faʿala Past Eventual
iḏā faʿala faʿala/yafʿalu Present Eventual
iḏā faʿala faʿala Potential11
law faʿala/kāna yafʿalu (fa-)yafʿalu/(la-)faʿala Present Unreal12
8. Ben Haddūqa, 1991.
9. Kūnī (Al-), 2005.
10. Wewillformalizetheverbalformsofprotasesandapodosesasfollowing: māḍī(perfect)=faʿala,
muḍāriʿ marfūʿ (imperfect indicative) = yafʿalu, muḍāriʿ manṣūb (imperfect subjunctive) = yafʿala and
muḍāriʿ mağzūm (imperfect apocopate) = yafʿal. We are reminding here that the affirmative
apocopate does not affect systems in iḏā or law (see Alosh, 2005 : 271 and examples p. 195, 218),
which confirms the following example: iḏā ǧunna yasʾalūna-hu ʿannī (Ḥaddaṯa : 69): "When he gets
mad, they ask him about me". The apocopate seems still to be in use in the insystems. See example
below (11).
11. The distinction between Past Eventual and Potential occurs only with recourse to the context.
12. This line reads in pairs of words: lawfaʿala… (fa-)yafʿalu or lawkanayafʿalu…(la-)faʿalaas proposed
- ٢ -
law faʿala/kāna faʿala faʿala Past Unreal
Withinthe283relevantsystems,wefirstobservetheneardisappearanceofin:thelatterrepresents
only 16 occurrences, that is to say 5.65% of the total. In so doing, our purpose will be to focus pri-
marily on the two remaining operators, iḏā and law.
We then observe the overwhelming usage of the perfect form of the protasis verb (97.18%).
Only 8 systems in law have a imperfect protasis verb.
Regarding now the apodoses, we find, next to the expected faʿala, the yafʿalu verbal form. We
alsoobservestructuresthattolerateaverblikesa-yafʿaluintheapodosis.Thisconcerns28.57%ofiḏā
systems and 13.84% of law systems. We are thus dealing with three possible forms of apodosis both
for iḏā and law: yafʿalu, sa-yafʿalu and faʿala. Without denying the possible existence of cases of ambi-
guity,asinClassicalArabic,theprincipleofnonsynonymyrequireslookingbeyondthethreeforms
of apodosis (yafʿalu, sa-yafʿalu and faʿala) to three distinct conditional meanings.
It appears moreover that some systems in iḏā faʿala…faʿala, classically linked to Eventual and
Potential, are here indeed linked to both and thus describe a statute complying with that described
in Classical Arabic grammars. But many of these iḏā faʿala…faʿala denote instead the Present Unreal!
AndifweaddtothisthefactthatBadawietal.(Badawietal.,2004:647)indicatethatlawcanbesyn-
onymous of in, then what about the strict classical dichotomy based on the operators: iḏā/in-Poten-
tial vs law-Unreal?
From our corpus, we also note that the "segmentator" fa-13, far from being systematic14, rep-
resents only 36.70% of the apodoses in (sa-)yafʿalu; apodoses that should impose it, according to the
canons of classical grammar. Thus, it seems no longer to indicate a simultaneous syntactic and se-
mantic break, as it did in Classical Arabic15 but to occur mainly for contrastive reasons, permitting
the indication that what follows is indeed the beginning of the apodosis.
As for la-, it also now appears, possibly in imitation of law, to indicate the Unreal in iḏā sys-
tems. However it is not systematic in Unreal systems, representing only 52.35% of the apodoses in
faʿala.Itshouldneverthelessbenotedthatwhilequasi-systematicallyabsentfromUnrealsystemsin
iḏā, it is quasi-systematically present in the case of the Past Unreal in law. This can be called regret-
table because, as we will see, it would have allowed differentiation between two iḏāfaʿala…faʿala sys-
tems,whichonlythecontextcandisambiguate:thePastEventualand…thePresentUnreal.Likefa-,
it may, when present, indicate the beginning of the apodosis, since this is not systematic.
In summary,itappears1)thatvariousformsofapodoses(yafʿalu,sa-yafʿaluandfaʿala)appear
inthehypotheticalsystemsiniḏāasinlaw,2)thatthedichotomyiḏā/in-Potentialvslaw-Unrealisno
longer as strict as it was, and 3) that fa- is not obligatory in cases classically thought to require it,
by Pierre Larcher (Larcher, 2003b). It is also noteworthy that Moïnfar quoted by Abi Aad, 2001 : 107,
suggests distinguishing between the Present Unreal in law yafʿalu… yafʿalu (law tadrusu tanǧaḥu "If
you were studying you would succeed") and the Past Unreal in law faʿala… la-faʿala (law darasta la-
naǧaḥta"Ifyouhadstudiedyouwouldhavesucceeded").However,itwasimpossibleforustoverify
this assertion.
13. About "segmentator" expression and the introduction in arabics studies of the notion of
segmentation from Charles Bally, see Larcher, 2006.
14. Which seems to corroborate Taha, 1995 : 180-182 quoted by Ryding, 2005 : 671.
15. On the presence of fa- in CA, see among others Ibn Hišām, 1989/IV : 113 and what follows;
Zamaḫšarī (Al-), 1999 : 417; Larcher, 2000; Ayoub, 2003.
- ٣ -
just as la- for law seems now to be optional. What do the Modern Arabic grammars say about all of
this ?
2. What the Modern Arabic grammars show and what they do not : the grammars’ descriptive
inadequacy
Aswecansee,allthiscontrastsinaverysingularwaywithwhatistaught(andthenlearnedandre-
producedandtaughtagain...).Thisis"normal"inthecaseofthepresentationofthenormalizedex-
pression of the conditional put forward by the modern grammars of Classical Arabic, like Haywood
and Nahmad (Haywood et Nahmad, 2001 : 290-300). These mention the classic dichotomy in/iḏā-Po-
tential vs law-Unreal, indicate the predominance of in over iḏā and note, in regard to the verbal
forms, the exclusive presence of the perfect in the law systems (or very rarely of the imperfect in-
dicative) while noting the classical verbal possibilities in the case of in16. It is the same for Moïnfar,
as quoted by Abi Aad17 (see above footnote 12), Kouloughli, 1994, Neyreneuf et Al-Hakkak, 1996 or
moreover, as expected, the latest French teaching manual for Arabic, Kullo Tamâm (Tahhan, 2007),
which continues with a classical presentation and whose perspective is more prescriptive than de-
scriptive. On the contrary, that these phenomena are more or less unknown in modern grammars of
Modern Arabic, grammars that aim to be more descriptive of a modern, concrete state, is what seems
strange.
Beeston (Beeston, 2006 : 94-97) does record the replacement of in by iḏā. For him the arabic
conditionalclausesarenotmarkedbytheverbform,butbytheparticleused.Therefore,heremains
with the classical dichotomy. Without mentioning in, he only shows perfects or jussives and reports
the systematic nature of fa-in the case of system "breaks". For law, he once again only records per-
fects and then notes the ambiguity between the Present and Past Unreal. Finally, the occurrence of
la- is presented as optional.
Holes (Holes, 2004 : 292-299) seems to note, but without making it systematic, that iḏā ac-
cepts in apodosis verbal forms other than the simple and classical faʿala (Holes, 2004 : 296-297). Ac-
cording to him, "The salient features of conditional sentences in MSA are the sequence of verb
forms used and the particles used to introduce the conditional clause (the protasis) and, in some
types of sentences, the answering clause (the apodosis) (Holes, 2004 : 293). Nevertheless, the author
continues: "But, unlike English, the type of condition ‒ real, possible or unreal ‒ is signaled chiefly
by the particle used to introduce the conditional clause, rather than verb form perse" (Holes, 2004 :
293)18.Hethenconcludes:"Thusthedifferentshadesofprobabilityofaconditionalclausebeingful-
filled are signaled in written Arabic by the choice of particle and not, as in English, by the form of
the verb" (Holes, 2004 : 294). Yet he no longer speaks of MSA but of CLA (Classical Arabic). Going
backtoMSA,hestatesthat"therealityisdifferent"(Holes,2004:295).Hedoesrecordthatinisnow
mainlyusedinconcessiveclauses(wa-in)orsubordinateclauseslike…‒infaʿala/lamyafʿal‒…(Holes,
2004 : 295). Therefore it is iḏā which replaces the latter in the expression of Potential (Holes, 2004 :
296)19,andtheauthorthenretainstheclassicdichotomyiḏā/in-Potentialvslaw-Unreal(Holes,2004:
296). However, he records, in the case of iḏā, apodoses in faʿala, yafʿalu and fa-sawfa-yafʿalu, which is
16. For a look at the possible verbal combinations in the field of the classical operator in, see
Zamaḫšarī (Al-), 1999 : 416.
17. Moïnfar, 1973 : 123, 129.
18. According him Real seems to signify Eventual, possible, Potential and unreal Unreal
19. That the author calls "open" conditional.
- ٤ -
rarely the case in other grammars, and links it to the Arabic dialects. He notes that in these: a. the
colloquialequivalentofinhasalmostdisappeared,relagatedtoexpressionssuchasinšāʾallāh,tothe
benefit of the colloquial equivalent of iḏā, and b. the verbal sequence of Potential systems (Holes,
2004 : 298)20 is essentially faʿala… yafʿalu (Holes, 2004 : 298) which is ambiguous without a context
(Holes, 2004 : 298).
Schulz,Krahl,andReuschel(Schulzetal.,2008:362-376)recordtherelegationofintosecond
place after iḏā, and retain the classic dichotomy iḏā-Potential (Schulz et al., 2008 : 362 onwards) vs
law-Unreal (Schulz et al., 2008 : 366 onwards). Furthermore, if they record structures such as fa-sa/
sawfa-yafʿalu as apodoses of iḏā systems, they only mention pefects in the case of law. On the other
hand,theirpresentationsystematizestheemergenceoffa-intheclassiccases(lan,qad,laysa,sa-and
sawfa, and inna+[pro]name) (Schulzetal., 2008 : 363-364). The authors thus finally show the non-sys-
tematic nature of la-. The examples seem mostly invented rather than authentic.
Buckley (Buckley, 2004 : 540, 668, 731-750) also presents the classic dichotomy in/iḏā-Poten-
tial vs law-Unreal, but he paraphrases some iḏā faʿala… faʿala systems in the Present Unreal. More-
over, he records for the iḏā systems apodoses of varied verbal forms (yafʿalu, sa-yafʿalu and faʿala),
and points, by use of an example, to the occurrence of a la- in an iḏā system (Buckley, 2004 : 737).
Concerning law, he only gives examples of law faʿala… faʿala systems (except for two law yafʿalu… la-
faʿala, one paraphrased in the Present Unreal, and the other in the Past Unreal), but nevertheless
specifies that la- is not systematic in these cases. Furthermore, his translations reproduce the usual
ambiguity between the Present Unreal and the Past Unreal. It is only under the section devoted to
the presence of fa- that the author offers three examples of apodosis of law systems that are not in
faʿala: one is in fa-lan yafʿala, the second one is in fa-sawfa yafʿalu, and the last is in fa-inna-hu sa-
yafʿalu.Regardinglaw,noapodosisinyafʿaluisthereforereported.Finally,theappearanceoffa-con-
forms to classical rules on the issue, but it is perceived by the author as non-systematic (Buckley,
2004 : 748).
Badawi,CarterandGully(Badawietal.,2004:40,623-624,632-670)notethedisappearanceof
innotonlytothebenefitofiḏābutalsooflaw;theseauthorssaythatCAlaw'if(unreal)'hasexpand-
edtocoversomeofthefunctionsofin'if(real)'asthelatterfallsincreasinglyintodisuse"(Badawiet
al., 2004 : 636, 647). They record moreover the use of iḏā in syntaxes imitating that of law21. In doing
so, the authors add nuance to the sacrosanct classic dichotomy. In law systems linked to the Unreal,
the verbal forms given by authors for the protasis and apodosis are those of the imperfect. Thus
they have the law faʿala… faʿala syntax retain its classic ambiguity between Present and Past Unreal
(Badawietal.,2004:645).However,concerningthelawsystemsthatare"synonymousofin"theapo-
doses can be paraphrased in (fa-)sa-yafʿalu (Badawi et al., 2004 : 647). The authors therefore present
two verbal forms for law: faʿala and (fa-)sa-yafʿalu. For iḏā, they offer three different verb forms for
the apodosis: faʿala, yafʿalu and sa-yafʿalu (Badawietal., 2004 : 653-654). Fa- is presented as quasi-sys-
tematic with iḏā under the same conditions as with the classical in. La- is, according to the authors,
generally present in law systems.
Alosh(Alosh,2005:270-272)reproducestheclassicdichotomyiḏā/in-Potentialvslaw-Unreal,
noting that iḏā should be followed by a perfect verb and that its apodosis can be either faʿala or
yafʿalu. The author paraphrases the two syntaxes in the same way (Alosh, 2005 : 218). No mention is
20. Called "open" conditional sentence[s].
21. Badawietal.assertthatiḏāthenhasthe"samesyntaxandsenseaslaw"(Badawietal.,2004:656).
Nevertheless,aswewillseethankstothedataprovidedbyourcorpus,thisstatementistrueonlyif
we add "when considered in classical Arabic where law faʿala… la-faʿala is neutral as to meaning be-
tweenPresentandPastUnreal"orifwespecify"hasthesamesyntaxastheClassicalArabicUnreal's
law and the same sense as the Modern Standard Arabic Present Unreal's law".
- ٥ -
madeoffa-.Astolaw,thesystemispresentedasfixedintheformlawfaʿala…la-faʿalawiththeoccur-
renceofla-obligatory.Thustheauthordoesnotrecordapodosesinsa-yafʿalu,neitherforiḏānorfor
law.
Ryding (Ryding, 2005 : 671-676) also remains very "classic" in her presentation of the tradi-
tional dichotomy iḏā/in-Potential vslaw-Unreal. She writes: "Arabic uses differentparticles to express
possible conditions and impossible conditions" (Ryding, 2005 : 671) with supporting references in
her footnotes that border on modernity: Peled, Cantarino, Blachère and Gaudefroy-Demombynes,
Fischer… (Ryding, 2005 : footnote 2 : 671). She only offers, for law, faʿala/lamyafʿal structures, in pro-
tasisaswellasinapodosis(Ryding,2005:675).Sheindicatesthegeneral,butnotthesystematic,na-
tureofla-.Nothingissaidaboutthenegationoftheapodosis,noraboutthepresence-ornot-ofla-
in this case. Iḏā is presented as having nowadays replaced in. Concerning iḏā, whose protasis is in
faʿala, she specifies that a rupture (Ryding, 2005 : 672) may appear in the apodosis, i.e. a tense other
thanfaʿala.Howevershedoesonlygivethreeexamples:adefensive,ainjunctiveandaprepositional
phraseintroducedbyfa-(fa-ʿalay-kaan).Indoingso,shedoesnotpresent,foriḏā,apodosesinyafʿalu
nor in sa-yafʿalu.
Hassanein (Hassanein, 2006 : 98-100) certainly registers a syntax iḏā faʿala… fa-sa-yafʿalu, but
translates it in the same manner as iḏā faʿala… faʿala. In addition to replicating the strict dichotomy
iḏā/in-Potentialvslaw-Unreal,shedoesnotmention,inthecaseoflaw,anyapodosisinyafʿalunorin
sa-yafʿalu. She contents herself with saying that law is followed by a perfect verb (protasis), but does
not specify anything for the apodosis while her examples, nevertheless, only show for the latter
faʿala. Still in the case of law, la- is presented as necessary before a perfect verb and as optional be-
foreanegativeformwhich,accordingtoher,mustbeinmāfaʿala,notinlamyafʿal.Finally,fa-ispre-
sented as systematically used in the case where the apodosis is neither a perfect nor a jussive22 and
asobligatorywheretherearenoperfectverbsforiḏā(Hassanein,2006:98).Weshouldnotethather
examples also do not seem genuine.
McCarus (McCarus, 2007 : 149-152) does not, for his part, record the apodosis in anything
otherthanfaʿalaforiḏā/inandlaw,andadherestothestrictdichotomyiḏā/in-Potentialvslaw-Unre-
al. Like others, he notes that iḏā has taken over in; the former signifies more realisable conditions,
whileinwouldsuggestsahypothesisinthetruesenseoftheword.Hereagain,theexamplesarenot
authentic.
Conclusion: The authors of these Modern Arabic grammars 1) retain more often the classical
dichotomy iḏā/in-Potential vs law-Unreal, 2) show, in the vast majority of cases, apodoses only in
faʿala and almost never in yafʿalu nor in sa-yafʿalu, or if it is so, almost never for law, but only for iḏā,
and 3) consider, more generally, that la- is not systematic and that fa-, on the contrary, is in cases
where the verb of the apodosis is neither a perfect nor a jussive introduced by the lam of negation.
Ofthesegrammars,BuckleyandBadawietal.especiallystandoutduetothenumberandauthentici-
ty of their examples, which allow us to see a reality that is far more complex than any of the others
show. Most of the latter simply content themselves to recording the replacement of in by iḏā with-
out offering any system that could be descriptively adequate to the reality of the uses. Nonetheless,
Buckley, Badawi etal. do not actually organize these structures into a coherent system and are thus
forced to interpret identical structures in various different ways23.
22. Case of in. See Hassanein : 99.
23. Thus,forexample,inBuckley(Buckley,2004:739-740),thestructurelawfaʿala…faʿala,classically
interpretedasacasecontainingambiguitybetweenthePresentUnrealandthePastUnreal;herewe
see only, in what emerges from our study, a Past Unreal. Alternatively there is the structure iḏā
faʿala… faʿala interpreted as Present Unreal and Potential (Buckley, 2004 : 734 and 737) where we do
not interpret it as Potential.
- ٦ -
As we see, the first observations from our corpus do not correspond to the majority of the
descriptionsofhypotheticalsystemsofModernArabicgivenbytherecentgrammarsoftheModern
Standard language. We will now detail our observations in order to identify a system that seems to
us coherent.
3. Data Presentation
I. The Eventual
For the Eventual, iḏā (33 cases out of 37), with iḏā mā (4/37), is indeed the majority operator, and
thus continues to express the Eventuals classically.
1. Present Eventual: iḏā faʿala… yafʿalu
That this syntax describes the Eventual will be highlighted by a first example with iḏā mā, which
operatesinthesamewayasiḏā,iḏāmāfaʿala…yafʿaluinbeingpresentedastheequivalentofʿinda-mā
yafʿalu… yafʿalu which is, itself, only interpreted as an Eventual:
(1) wa-id̠ā mā faʿala aḥadu-hum, fa-inna-hu yuḍṭarru bi-l-ṭabʿi ilā rtiqāʾi l-daraği, wa-ʿinda-mā yablugu̇ l-
ṭābiqa l-aḫīra takūnu ḫuṭuwātu-hu qad abṭaʾat mina l-taʿabi (Al-Laǧna : 53)
"As soon as one of them does/has done it then he is naturally obliged to climb the stairs, and when
he reaches the top floor, his steps are slowed with fatigue"
(2) iḏā ʿalā ṣawtu raǧulin yaṭlubu l-isrāʿa li-talbiyati ṭalabi-hi, huna yanẓuru ilay-hi wa-yušīru bi-raʾsi-hi
išaratan wāḥidatan mūgazatan : " -mšī.." (Al-Zaynī : 240)
"If/when someone raises his voice urging him to serve him, he looks at him at once and makes a
simple gesture of the head: "Back off. . . ! ""
(3)ammāiḏāqārabatil-intihāʾafa-innal-šarikatataqūmubi-iʿādatitaʿbiʾati-hādāḫilaakyāsintaḥmilu-sma-
hā wa-taʾrīḫa iʿādati l-taʿbiʾati (Ḏat : 271)
"Andwhentheyareclosetobeingoutdated,thecompanyrepackagestheminbagsbearingitsname
and the date of the repackaging"
(4) wa-iḏā fuṣila l-hindī lā yaškū wa-inna-mā yabḥaṯu fī hudūʾin ʿan ʿamalin āḫara (Warda : 17)
"And when the Indian is dismissed, he does not complain and simply searches quietly for another
job"
(5) iḏā tašāǧarat imraʾatun maʿa zawǧi-hā lā taqṣidu bayta ahli-hā šākiyatan inna-mā talǧaʾu ilay-ka
wāṯiqatan bi-anna mā laḥiqa bi-hā min ẓulmin sa-yazūlu (Al-Numūr : 33)
"When a woman quarrels with her husband, she does not go to his parents complaining, but she
takes refuge with you, confident that the injustice towards her will pass"
(6) iḏā takallamat tanfatiḥu l-nafsu kulliyyatan (Al-Ǧāziya : 70)
- ٧ -
"When she speaks, the soul opens itself up completely"
IfBadawietal.havenotedtheexistenceofthissyntax,theyhaveatleastsuggestedthatitsmeaning
isnotobvious.Thus,theytranslatethissyntaxasbothasaPotential(Badawietal.,2004:654)andas
anEventual(Badawietal.,2004:661).Forsomeoftheirexamples,wewouldhaveoptedforanEven-
tual. This is particularly the case with maʿa ḍālika (sic) iḏā ḫaraǧa minhā fī riḥlatin aw ziyāratin ilā
makānin mā min alʿālami narāhu lā yaḫšā l-iḫtināqa ka-asmāki l-baḥri min hāḏā l-ḫurūǧi, however, if he
leaves it for traveling or to visit any place in the world we find [lit. "see"] that he does not fear being stifled
likethefishoftheseadointhisway(Badawietal., 2004 : 653-654). For our part we translate as follows:
"however,whenheleavesitfortravelingortovisitanyplaceintheworld,weseethathedoesnotfearbeing
stifledlikethefishoftheseado". Nevertheless, it remains that of the 35 systems in iḏā whose apodosis
is in (fa-)yafʿalu form, 22 actually designate the Eventual, but 13, that is to say 37.14%, designate the
Potential. It seems here that only the context can help to distinguish between iḏā faʿala… yafʿalu for
the Present Eventual and iḏā faʿala… yafʿalu for the Potential.
2. Past Eventual: iḏā faʿala… faʿala
BeforeconsideringthemajoritysyntaxfortheexpressionofthePastEventual,andtolinkthispoint
tothepreviouspoint,weshouldnotethatthisexpressioncanbeformed,asinClassicalArabic,with
the syntax of a present Eventual placed in the field of a perfect verb (most commonly kāna). This is
shownbythefollowingexample,whichisinparallelherealsowithʿinda-mābut,thistime,inaqifp
sequence:
(7) wa-kānati l-bahǧatu tušiʿʿu fī kiyānī ʿinda-mā yaqaʿu naẓarī ʿalay-hā wa-yaǧtāḥu-nī l-yaʾsu iḏā lam aǧid-
hā (Warda : 56)
"Delightwouldirradiateinmybeingwhenevermyeyefellonheranddespairwouldoverwhelmme
when I could not find her"
Another example, this time from Badawi etal., also puts into play kāna and its sisters to express ha-
bitualactions:kuntuiḏāwaṣaltuilāl-munḥanāʿindafurnil-ḥaǧǧiNāṣifaltafituilāl-ḫalfi,wheneverIused
to reach the corner at Hajj Nasif's bakery I would look behind me (Badawi : 662). Now let us see the al-
ternative offered by the system:
(8) raʾaytu-hum yuzīḥūna l-aṯqāla ʿan dawābbi-him kulla-mā tawaqqafa bi-him al-sabīlu l-abadī ḥattā iḏā
faraġūmindawābbi-himwa-ṭmaʾannūʿalāḏawī-himhabbūli-naǧdatiaqrabamanǧāwara-humli-yuʿīnūʿalā
amri-hi (Malakūt : 130)
"I saw them removing the loads from their animals at each time they encountered an interruption
along the Everlasting Way. So much so that when they had finished with their cattle and were as-
sured of their relatives, they rose to rescue the nearest neighbor and help him with his business"
(9) wa-kāna iḏā arāda l-ṭaʿāma taṭahhara la-hu ka-taṭahhuri-hi li-l-iḥrāmi (Ḥaddaṯa : 96)
- ٨ -
where the auxiliary verb kāna provides the interpretation of the Past Eventual24:
"And when he wanted food, he would purify himself for it as he would for the state of ritual
consecration"
(10) iḏātaḥaddaṯal-sukkānuʿanbuṭūlati-himtaḥaddaṯūbi-basāṭatinwa-tawāḍuʿinmuḍhilayni!maʿaanna-
hum samaw bi-buṭūlati-him ilā mustawā l-maṯali l-sāʾiri (Al-Ǧāziya : 37)
"When people spoke of their heroism, they did so with disconcerting simplicity and humility! And
this despite the fact that they have raised their heroism to the level of a proverb!"25
In modern Arabic, however, the emergence of a new layer does not necessarily cancel de facto the
previous one. Then, interpretation of data remains difficult and some iḏāfaʿala…faʿala may be inter-
preted as Present Eventual. Thus, Badawi etal. interpret iḏāāʿǧaba-nīkitābuntamannaytulawiqtanay-
tu-hu as a Present Eventual: "if a book pleases me I wish I owned it" (Badawi et al., 2004 : 653); we
would have read it in the past: "When a book pleased me I wished I owned it"26. Similarly they inter-
pretasPresentEventualbothiḏāfaʿala…yafʿaluandiḏāfaʿala…faʿala:iḏāḫaraǧatil-asmākuminal-baḥri
tamūtubi-l-iḫtināqi,"whenthefishcomeoutouttheseatheydieofasphyxiation"(Badawi:661)andiḏā
samiʿa aḏāna l-faǧri fī hudūʾi l-layli ṭariba l-qalbu, "when he hears the dawn prayer call in the calm of the
nighthisheartrejoices".ForourpartwewouldhaveinterpretedthesecondashavingaPastEventual
meaning: "Whenever he heard the dawn prayer call in the calm of the night his heart would rejoice".

II. The Potential: iḏā faʿala… (fa-)sa-yafʿalu and law faʿala… yafʿalu
In, despite a tentative incursion into the Past Unreal field, continues only to express the Potential,
regardless of the syntax of the verb forms that follow it. Concerning the latter, it is essentially this
that sets the tone, and not the syntax of the apodosis. It represents nevertheless only 19.23% of Po-
tential systems; iḏā, as was pointed out long ago, now mostly expresses the Potential with 67.95%.
However, what to our knowledge is almost never mentioned, except quite remarkably by Badawi et
al., is the significant appearance of law in this hypothetical status (12.82%).
1. In: variable syntax
24. The French version presents a printmistake saying Present Unreal.
25. Thecontextisthatofanarrativeinthepast:maʿaannal-qaryatakāfaḥat,ṣamadat,waqafatfīwaǧhi
l-ẓulmi,baytanbaytan,fardanfardan,lākinbi-dūniḥiqdin.Al-šāmbiṭunafsu-huʿinda-māumirabi-l-istiqāli-
staqāla.Wa-lammāǧāʾal-istiqlāluwa-umirabi-l-ʿawdatiʿāda…Iḏātaḥaddaṯal-sukkānu… ("despite the fact
thatthevillagefought,resisted,stoodupinfrontoftheoppression,houseafterhouse,individualaf-
ter individual, but without hatred. The «garde-champêtre» himself when ordered to resign re-
signed. And when independence came and they ordered him to return he returned… When people
were speaking…
26. As we shall see, it could also be interpreted as a Present Unreal, meaning "If I liked a book, I
would wish I owned it".
- ٩ -